Feedback from Boards re Safety Concerns
Question posed to School Board Superintendents:
Dear Superintendents,
Further to our discussions of earlier this afternoon, I am asking you to articulate
concerns you have regarding student safety and security (including the security of the
school buildings) should all NSTU member-employees follow the directives as set out in
NSTU’s “Work to Rule 2016” booklet. In addition, I am seeking your professional advice
and recommendation to the question of whether consideration should be given to close
schools to students due to uncertainty and safety concerns.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sandra McKenzie
Deputy Minister
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development

Board Responses:
Board
AVRSB

Response
Deputy Minister McKenzie,
Our priority is to provide a safe environment for students to learn. To be confident
that our schools can provide this, there are two important factors.
First, appropriate and adequate direct supervision of students must be in place
during the times that students are at school, but not receiving classroom
instruction. Our current contingency plan relies on additional staff members
following modified schedules to ensure supervision before school, during recess
and lunch breaks, and after school. Any change in the availability of employee
groups during these times would jeopardize these plans and create potentially
unsafe situations for students.
Second, administrators must be responsible for the overall safety and security of
students from the time they arrive at school to the time they leave, as outlined in
the Education Act. Administrators—principals and, in some schools, vice
principals—provide leadership and supervision to all staff in schools and oversee all
aspects of school operations. If administrators cannot, due to limitations imposed
by the NSTU, reliably carry out these essential functions and provide leadership to
staff, we cannot be certain that our schools are providing the safest environments
possible.
We know that all of our staff members—NSTU members and others—care deeply
for the well-being and education of students, but are obliged to comply with
directives of their union. The level of uncertainty created by these directives leaves
us two options; to proceed with schools open on Monday with increased risk, or to
err on the side of student safety. To uphold our priority of student safety, we must
consider closing schools to students until we can ensure that appropriate student
supervision will continue, and administrators are able to meet their obligations
under the Education Act.

 Feedback from Boards re Safety Concerns
Board

Response
Respectfully,

CBVRSB
CCRSB

Attached separate document.
Good afternoon Sandra,
Thank you for consulting with Superintendents on safety concerns. This has been
the primary focus of our Strike Management Committee since receiving the NSTU
Work to Rule 2016 document.
If all NSTU members follow the NSTU directives in this booklet, we have the
following concerns related to safety and security:
1. Before and After School Supervision can only be managed with reasonable
certainty if the Principal remains in charge and actively supervises,
particularly in 43 schools where at least one bus arrives prior to the 20
minute timeframe for NSTU supervision of students. 19 of the 43 schools
will require more than just the Principal to oversee early arrivals. Where
NSGEU or other staff support the Principal with daily supervision, the
Principal is understood to be in charge and the source of direction in case of
emergency. Similarly, 8 of our schools require supervision for some
students beyond the 20 minute timeframe due to delayed buses.
2. In all of our schools, active supervision and accepted responsibility by the
Principal is a prerequisite of safety and security during the noon hour. The
directives of the NSTU booklet leave this requirement in serious question
(impacts over 19,000 students). Additionally, 11 of our schools rely on the
participation of NSTU members for daily supervision and our contingency
plans are currently functional in theory only, as an NSGEU memo and the
reservations of individuals have resulted in an inability to confirm who will
accept supervisory roles on Monday, December 5th (impacts 2500
students).
3. The directive which denies access to a Teacher-in-Charge raises serious
concern and potential vulnerabilities for next week. Many of our schools
are small and do not have a Vice Principal on staff. In many of our schools
that do have a Vice Principal, they have significant classroom teaching
responsibilities. On any given day 10% of our principals may be out of the
building for valid reasons. We simply cannot operate a school with the
degree of safety required in situations where there is no teacher in charge
due to principal absence.
We are continuing to explore every possible option and are working to keep schools
open if at all possible. All scenarios would still require an assurance that the NSTU
will recognize and support the responsibilities of the Principal under the Education
Act.
A more in depth analysis of safety impacts related to the directives of the NSTU
booklet has been conducted by the Strike Management Committee and there are
additional concerns, although possibly mitigated. Having considered this

 Feedback from Boards re Safety Concerns
Board

Response
information in its entirety, we do not currently have a reasonable degree of
certainty that it will be safe to open schools on Monday, December 5th.
We believe the following is necessary to resolve in order to proceed in safely
operating schools:
- NSTU confirm and clearly communicate
o that principals and vice principals maintain their broad
responsibilities for the safe operation of the school and school
community (without exception)
o the above includes that principals and vice principals actively
supervise during lunch (not only “respond”)
o the above includes that principals and vice principals will actively
supervise in situations where students are expected to attend even
if it is outside the 20 minutes
o that any teacher may act and will be supported in doing so as
teacher-in-charge in accordance with regional board agreements
- NSGEU employees confirm and their union clearly supports that additional
hours for student monitoring be accepted by NSGEU members and relied
upon by the board
Depending on what is resolved (and what may not be) will determine on a school by
school basis whether safety can be satisfactorily established. Only then will we
have confidence that we can safely operate our schools.
I trust this supports decision making and will be happy to provide further
information if needed.

CSAP

In light of the present situation where all NSTU member-employees follow the
directives as set out in NSTU’s “Work to Rule 2016” booklet, CSAP has important
concerns regarding student safety. In addition, our contingency plans regarding
student supervision before, during and after school have now been compromised
with the positions taken by NSGEU and CUPE. These persons were an integral part
of the supervision plan and their absence will hinder our capacity to ensure student
safety and security at all times.
Principals of our schools now feel that their ability to ensure our student’s security
with a high degree of certainty is impossible. We have grave concerns at the
moment that we, as a Board, will not be in a position to articulate to parents with
absolute confidence, that their child’s safety will be ensured as of Monday morning.
It is our opinion that consideration should be given to close schools to students due
to uncertainty and safety concerns.

HRSB

I have confidence in the Contingency Plans developed for our Board in the case of
rotating strike, global strike or work to rule job action. The foundation of each of

 Feedback from Boards re Safety Concerns
Board

Response
these plans is leadership at the school responsible for the safe operation of the
school. This assures safety of students in our care.
As you know, the NSTU has indicated a partial withdrawal of services effective
Monday. This removes the assurance of someone in charge (principal). This puts
students at risk in many ways, particularly over the lunch hour. Specifically, our
work to rule plan for supervision is predicated on individuals reporting to
someone. Many new faces with no ability to rely on leadership for various incidents
is unsafe.
We have recently been advised that teachers who are unable to report to work are
being directed to advise their principal within the 20 minute window of their work
day, not before. Should this happen, it will absolutely result in classrooms without
teachers. This is unsafe, and not able to be mitigated in a timely manner.
Our contingency plans were built on duties of principals and teachers in the
Education Act. If the law is not a foundation for our plans, the uncertainty of what
services teachers and principals will continue to perform causes grave safety
concerns for the 48,000 students in our schools. I can offer a variety of examples
which we have considered with elementary students, secondary students, students
with special needs and others.
Our staff is working to ensure schools are open. We are working to identify risk and
mitigation strategies so to ensure the safety of students in our care. We are not yet
able to problem-solve this partial strike. If we do proceed with schools open on
Monday with heightened risk, I do not expect that we will be able to mitigate the
uncertainty of what services we can reliably count on as situations predictably
escalate after Monday.
I am receiving many inquiries from parents. Most relate to the safety of their
child(ren) and are looking for assurance of a continued safe and positive school
environment. At present, under current conditions as described by the NSTU, I do
not believe that to be possible.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.

SRSB

The Strait Regional School Board has significant concerns regarding student
supervision and safety should all NSTU members follow the directives as outlined in
the NSTU's "Work to Rule 2016" booklet. This includes 20 minutes before class, 20
minutes after class, recess and lunch time as student supervision in the Strait Board
is done primarily by NSTU members. In addition, some of our students travel over
an hour on bus to and from school, and with school administrators not being
available until 20 minutes before and after class creates a definite safety concern.
Even though my staff is working hard on contingency planning to mitigate safety
risks for Monday, December 5, 2016, it is my belief, that, under the current

 Feedback from Boards re Safety Concerns
Board

Response
restrictions as outlined in the NSTU’s “Work to Rule 2016” booklet, I do not believe
that we can maintain a safe school environment for our students.
Thank you for involving superintendents in the consultation and contingency
planning process.
All the best!

SSRSB

We have several concerns related to student safety and security in SSRSB related to
the WTR strike. In our view, the ability for us to maintain and ensure a safe, orderly
and supportive learning environment in all schools in the region is impossible to
guarantee under the working expectations for NSTU members as described in the
WTR 2016 document.
Setting the negative impacts to student program, supports and services aside,
details related to basic safety and security of students are very difficult to address.
Basically, we are trying to manage what we don't know could happen and that is
impossible to mitigate. The absence of certainty in having a school administrator
available at all times is causing the level of risk to rise substantially.
For example, while we are able to maintain busing with the 20 minutes window of
teacher supervision, we can't control parents who drop children off early or older
students who may come to school early on there own. Likewise, the same concern
exists at dismissal. To add further complexity to the supervision matter, we hare
doing our best to supervise student lunch periods and high school breaks with nonNSTU staff. We are very fragile in this area and have to seek out community
volunteers to provide a very thin coverage over these times. Our noon hour
supervision is very limited and we are concerned staff not experienced in this type
of responsibility may in fact refuse to provide the service, or at no fault of there
own because of a lack of training, experience or knowledge of student behaviour,
cause a situation to escalate when it otherwise may not have done so.
Regarding bus drop off after school for our younger students, many students are on
the bus past the 20 minute allowable supervision window. Under normal
conditions, the principal is an integral component of the plan if an adult is not at the
stop to receive the young students. Under the WTR, the Principal is no longer able
to provide that safety support. We are worried about this eventually.
We currently have one school with e teacher-in-charge. We understand this is not
permitted under the WTR strike.
We have a concern about the security of cash and other funds that flow through the
school.
Electronic tracking of student attendance allows us to inform parents / guardians
when their child is absent through the Alert system. Under the WTR, this safety

 Feedback from Boards re Safety Concerns
Board

Response
measure will not be available and it is possible for a student to be missing for the
whole school day.
We believe there to be additional safety and security concerns related to critical
information such as parent / guardian custody or medical information that
temporary staff will not have immediate access to.
I hope it is helpful we have provided some practical examples of our safety and
security concerns. In summation, I believe we should give serious consideration to
close schools due to uncertainty and safety concerns due to the conditions
described in the WTR.

TCRSB

Some of TCRSB concerns regarding student safety should all NSTU member
employees follow the directives as set out in NSTU’s “Work to Rule 2016” booklet
would be the following:
 Students travel distances on busses after school which would be longer than
20 minutes – the principal now would be the immediate contact with the
family and would have all of the student contact information – if principals
are not available past 20 minutes at the end of the school day this is a risk
 If principals/Vice-principals are not overseeing the safety of all students in the
building this will be a grave concern even with noon time supervisors in place
 With 10 schools without Vice-principals - not having the capability to
appointment a Teacher in Charge if the principal is absent is a concern
 Not entering attendance into PowerSchool (especially at High Schools where
attendance is taken at every class) poses risk for situations such as
evacuations when students may not be accounted for in a timely manner
through the office
 Principals are the main contact for community groups using the schools – if
principals are only available for 20 minutes at the end of the day overall
security of the building is a risk
 Supervision during high school recess – difficult to have supervisors come in
for short periods of times
The focus of all of our contingency planning discussions has been student
safety. With the uncertainty regarding all NSTU member employees following the
directives as set out in NSTU’s “Work to Rule 2016” and possible safety risks as a
result, I would think that closing schools to students should be considered.
Please let know if you require any further clarification. Thanks
Lisa
Follow-Up Response:
TCRSB has many concerns regarding student supervision and safety should all NSTU
member employees follow the directives as set out in NSTU’s “Work to Rule 2016”
booklet. We have students who travel distances on busses after school which
would be longer than 20 minutes after the end of the school day. The principal

 Feedback from Boards re Safety Concerns
Board

Response
would currently have all of the student contact information and be the immediate
contact with the family. If principals are not available past 20 minutes at the end of
the school day this is a serious risk.
Most of our noon supervision is done by non NSTU staff. Supervision during high
school recess is posing a challenge as it is difficult to find supervisors who are willing
to come in for short periods of time. However, if principals/Vice-principals are not
overseeing the safety of all students in the building this will be a grave concern even
with those noon time supervisors in place.
TCRSB has 10 schools without Vice-principals. According to the “Work to Rule”
booklet we will not have the capability to appointment a Teacher in Charge if the
principal is absent. It is not safe to have a school remain open without someone in
that position.
There are concerns regarding teachers not entering attendance into
PowerSchool. Tracking students is extremely important. At High Schools where
attendance is taken at every class. There is safety risk associated with emergency
procedures such as evacuations when students may not be accounted for in a
timely manner through the office.
Principals are the main contact for community groups using the schools when the
schools do not community use agreements. With principals to be available for any
contact only 20 minutes at the end of the day overall security of the buildings is a
concern.
The focus of all of our contingency planning discussions has been student
safety. With the uncertainty regarding all NSTU member employees following the
directives as set out in NSTU’s “Work to Rule 2016” and possible safety risks as a
result, I feel that closing schools to students should be considered.
Please let know if you require any further clarification.
Thank you for the ongoing collaboration.
Lisa